Participation in the exercise of power or struggle against the power?

By Demosthenes Kyriazis

Many people believe that in the present "Democratic Regimes ", is not served the interests of the set of people but is served the interests of the few who, directly or indirectly, exercise the power. This leads to the need for a constant struggle between the class of the few governors and the class of ordinary people who are the being governed ones; leads to conclusion that the struggle between the two classes is a legitimate need.

It is obvious that this doctrine has meaning and logic when power is exercised by the few elected or arbitrary representatives of the citizens. On the other hand, when power is exercised directly by the whole of the citizens themselves, this struggle, neither a concept nor a logical, nor a practical possibility, has. Fighting with ourselves is an internal struggle with our conscience and not a struggle between people.

People make this internal struggle when they make decisions with the power of logic (which is the privilege of human ) and not with the powers of his instincts and motivations with which all other beings make decisions. Despite the perceived perception that the struggle of the people against the rulers serves the interests of the ordinary people, essentially this struggle serves the interests of the rulers. This stems from the fact that their top goal is to maintain the perception that the existence of the class of the rulers, is a logical moral and practical need. On the contrary, even the idea of creating the class of the “Governor and of the governed citizen” and the abolition of the two orders, constitutes the great danger and enemy of them. The reasons are obvious.

In this logic, the struggle of the classes is the de facto acceptance of the doctrine that societies are structured by the Nature, by the God, from two classes of people; the class of governors and the class of the been governed ones But this doctrine is 180 degrees opposite from the natural law. People are born free and are not free thanks to the laws of the wise rulers. The wise rulers simply perceive and respect the natural law, the law of Got.

It is also important to note that the cost of this struggle is greatly paid by ordinary people and not by the Rulers. Such a struggle, which systematically the ordinary people pay its cost, looks like absurdity; looks like with self-punishment of the them.

These considerations lead to the conclusion that this struggle acts as a powerful moral pillar for the prevalence of the view that there must be the Machiavelli’ Princes; acts as a pillar for the logical and moral legalization of the oligarchy and many times for the birth of the oligarchy. The real and long-term interest of the people is not the struggle, but their rational participation in the exercise of power; is the regeneration of the status of the “Governor and governed citizen”.

But why did the above rational and moral principles not apply in a large scale? Why the application of these principles was practically limited to a small window of space-time with elements: Greece, Athens, 6th, 5th, mid 4th, century BC. In this fundamental question, which has played and plays an important role in the formation and prevalence of the different regimes, the answer is:

a.Because the communication of the people, which until yesterday demanded their physical presence in common space and time, created insurmountable difficulties in the functioning of the Direct Democracy. These difficulties have been partially faced in the small States-cities of ancient Greece.

b.Because the Rulers’ establishment, deliberately and by self-interest, distorted the way power is exercised by the Citizens’ Set.

c.Because the interests of the Rulers’ establishment are contrary to the principles of Direct Democracy and the creation of the “Governor and governed citizen”. is the definitive cancellation of any form of establishment. The various forms of the established oligarchy (political, economic, and intellectual) have such a strong dependence on each other that it is difficult to distinguish which is the one that gave birth to the others. The uterus that gave birth to all forms of oligarchy is the annulment of the status of the “Governor and governed citizen” that Nature gave to man.

The first cause (a) was, until yesterday, the biggest difficulty that made Direct Democracy a regime with little functional and economic feasibility. In the States with the today areas and population, it was practically impossible for Direct Democracy to function. Today, however, this important difficulty is easily and cost-effectively tackled with the use of digital technology. Today, citizens will not have to go to Pnyka. The Digital Pnyka will go to the citizens at time that the citizen himself chooses and not at the same time, as Athens' Pnyka required.

The second cause (b) belongs to the category of "established perceptions" that people have about particular important problems. Leb Landau, Nobel Prize-winning Russian physicist, states such an "established perceptions" in his book "What is the Theory of Relativity.» In this book, Landau refers to the following argument, which the old "experts" put forward to support the view of flat Earth and reject the view of the spherical Earth: : "If the Earth was spherical, then the Southern Hemisphere people would have to walk .... with the head on Earth and the feet in Heaven ". The same applies to the arguments of today's experts who argue that Direct Democracy is a utopian government, even with the use of digital technology.

The third cause (c) is strong, as long as causes (a) and (b) are strong. This is because the power-holders do not have their own power but only have the contractual / institutional right to manage the power of the citizens. The acquisition of this conventional right is done by various means; by free and forced, logical and absurd, moral and unethical. In any case, however, those exercising the power cannot become permanent owners of the non - transferable power of the citizens